A Theoretical Framework for Early English Language ......learn language through the context of relationships with their primary caregivers during daily routines. Through Through repeated

A Theoretical Framework for Early English Language

Development (E-ELD) Standards for Dual Language Learners

Table of ContentsRationale .................................................................................................................................................................. 1Purpose .................................................................................................................................................................... 1Components of E-ELD Standards Framework ......................................................................................................... 2Theoretical Basis for E-ELD Framework ................................................................................................................... 3 1. Grounded in Developmental Theory ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Guided by sociocultural Theory ..................................................................................................................... 3 3. Informed by Stages of Early Second Language Acquisition ............................................................................ 5 4. Validated by Authentic Language Samples of Dual Language Learners, 2.5–5.5 Years ................................... 7 5. Development of Language Levels and Performance Definitions ..................................................................... 7 6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 10References .............................................................................................................................................................. 12

FiguresFigure 1. Organization of WIDA’s English Language Development Standards Framework, .................................... 2 Kindergarten-Grade 12Figure 2. Visual Representation of the Early English Language Development Standards ........................................ 4Figure 3. Early English Language Development Performance Definitions .............................................................. 8

AppendicesAppendix A. Can Do Philosophy ....................................................................................................................... 15Appendix B. WIDA’s Guiding Principles of Language Development .................................................................. 17Appendix C. WIDA Standards Framework ......................................................................................................... 18Appendix D. Features of Developmentally Appropriate Academic Language for 2.5–5.5-Year-Olds .................... 19Appendix E. Performance Definitions ................................................................................................................ 20Appendix F. Example Strands of MPIs ............................................................................................................... 24Appendix G. Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 30

A Theoretical Framework for Early English Language Development (E-ELD) Standards for Dual Language Learners

1

RationaleChildren, ages birth–5 years, who are still developing basic competency in their home language(s) as they acquire English, are often referred to as dual language learners. The number of these young dual language learners has grown substantially in the United States in recent years. In 2006, 24% of all babies born in the U.S. were from homes where mothers reported speaking a primary language other than English (Garcia & Frede, 2010). Today “nearly one out of three children enrolled in Head Start come from homes in which a language other than English [LOTE] is spoken” (Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation: Final Report, 2012, p.99). Simultaneously, the importance of “school readiness” for our youngest learners has taken center stage nationally as evidenced by the proliferation of federal initiatives that require quality preschool programs to be guided by state Early Learning Standards (ELS) and measured in part by the development of Kindergarten Entry Assessments (KEAs). Consequently, early childhood practitioners are presented with the challenge of supporting, instructing, and assessing young dual language learners using the benchmarks of states’ Early Learning Standards, often without cultural and linguistic relevance.

PurposeWIDA’s response to the growing need for supporting learning and assessment of young dual language learners has been the creation of the Early English Language Development (E-ELD) Standards Framework. The purpose of the E-ELD standards is to provide a developmentally sound Framework for instructing and assessing dual language learners, ages 2.5–5.5 years, which aligns with existing WIDA ELD Standards for Kindergarten through Grade 12 and corresponds to states’ Early Learning Standards. The E-ELD standards, in conjunction with the K–12 ELD standards, will provide WIDA Consortium states a consistent and congruent Framework from early preschool through 12th grade. Early childhood programs outside the WIDA Consortium will also be able to readily apply the E-ELD standards to support, instruct, and assess language acquisition of dual language learners because of their direct correspondence with states’ Early Learning Standards and the Head Start Child Development and Early Learning Framework (Office of Head Start, 2010).


2

Components of E-ELD Standards FrameworkThe E-ELD Standards Framework consists of the same set of interactive and interdependent components as the WIDA ELD Standards, K–12 that include the features of academic language, performance definitions and the standards matrices. These components are grounded in WIDA’s research-based Guiding Principles of Language Development and reflect WIDA’s Can Do Philosophy (see Appendices A through C). In addition, a key feature of all WIDA Standards Frameworks is the explicit connection to academic content standards—the Common Core and other state academic standards, in the case of the K-12 Framework, and to states’ Early Learning Standards for the E-ELD Framework. This consistency in Frameworks ensures a system that is aligned for preschool-aged children through grade 12.

Figure 1. Organization of WIDA’s English Language Development Standards Framework, Kindergarten-Grade 12

The E-ELD Standards Framework has been critically examined in reference to WIDA’s K–12 Standards Framework and adapted to incorporate the unique characteristics of children, ages 2.5–5.5 years. As such, the nature of academic language for 2.5–5.5 year-olds has been expanded to include the social, instructional, and academic language of concept development that is typically used within early childhood settings. This definition is purposefully general as the nature of academic language for this young age group has not yet been clearly defined with recent studies suggesting that “general” vocabulary words may take on an academic nature when used to explicitly teach specific concepts in preschool settings (Bailey, Huang, Osipova, & Beauregard, 2013). The E-ELD Framework allows for this more “fluid” interpretation of academic language for our youngest learners. Finally, specific consideration has been given to the nature of early language and cognitive development, family and community-based sociocultural contexts for language learning, and the psycholinguistic nature of second language acquisition in preschoolers who are still developing the foundational structures and rules of language.

Exemplifying WIDA's Can Do Philosophy

PerformanceDe�nitions

Standards & their Matrices

Guid

ing Principles of Language Development

Age-

Appropriate Academic Language

in Sociocultural Contexts Exemplifying WIDA's Can Do Philosophy

PerformanceDe�nitions

Standards & their Matrices

Guid

ing Principles of Language Development

Age-

Appropriate Academic Language

in Sociocultural Contexts


3

Theoretical Basis for E-ELD Framework The E-ELD Standards Framework consists of the same set of interactive and interdependent components as the WIDA ELD Standards, K–12 that include the features of academic language, performance definitions and the standards matrices. These components are grounded in WIDA’s research-based Guiding Principles of Language Development and reflect WIDA’s Can Do Philosophy (see Appendices A through C). In addition, a key feature of all WIDA Standards Frameworks is the explicit connection to academic content standards—the Common Core and other state academic standards, in the case of the K-12 Framework, and to states’ Early Learning Standards for the E-ELD Framework. This consistency in Frameworks ensures a system that is aligned for preschool-aged children through grade 12.

1. Grounded in Developmental Theory

The E-ELD Framework is grounded in developmental theory and is sensitive to the parameters of young children’s linguistic and cognitive development between the ages of 2.5–5.5 years. Language is intrinsically linked to children’s cognitive development with more complex language developing as children acquire the capacity to represent increasingly complex ideas symbolically through oral language (Berk & Winsler, 1995; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Glassman, 1994). Thus children typically understand more language than they are able to produce in these early years. Although variations exist as to the age at which specific morpho-syntactic structures are acquired, children all over the world follow similar general patterns and timetables in learning to produce language: cooing, babbling, single words, simple phrases, simple sentences, and more complex sentences (Bardige & Bardige, 2008; DeHouwer, 2009; Bedore & Peña, 2008; Paradis, Genesee, & Crago, 2011). Experts agree that it takes monolingual children approximately the first five years of life to learn and refine the basic phonological, semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic rules of their language (Bedore & Peña, 2008; DeHouwer, 2009; Tabors, 2008). The E-ELD Framework honors young children’s cognitive and linguistic capacities during this early period of language development while taking into account differences that may exist for children who are learning more than one language.

2. Guided by Sociocultural Theory

While grounded in developmental theory, the E-ELD Framework embraces Vygotsky’s theory that cognitive and linguistic development is socially constructed and that children’s development can be “led” through appropriately mediated instruction (Berk & Winsler, 1995; Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Vygotskian theory emphasizes that children’s development is best understood within the cultural, social, and historical contexts in which it occurs (as cited in Berk & Winsler, 1995; as cited in Castro, García, Markos, 2013). All young children learn language through the context of relationships with their primary caregivers during daily routines. Through repeated social interactions with parents, siblings, extended family members, childcare providers, early childhood teachers, and peers, children learn to interpret and construct meaning through sounds, words, phrases, and sentences. Children also learn the cultural rules and roles for social engagement associated with their particular language through these meaningful interactions with important people in their lives. Thus the sociocultural contexts for young children’s language learning differs from that of school-aged students and occurs most often in their homes, extended family homes, or in community-based early childhood settings which may or may not be located in or associated with public schools.

Both sociocultural theory and developmentally appropriate practice suggest that young children learn academic language best through play-based activities within natural early childhood environments (Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Nevertheless, it is also true that “play” is a social construct and thus its role in learning may take on different meanings or values within different cultures. Consequently, some cultural groups may


4

emphasize different practices for teaching very young children “academic” language, including placing greater value on more formally structured and teacher-directed learning activities. The E-ELD Framework accommodates different cultural perspectives for supporting the development of academic language of young dual language learners through the structure of the model performance indicators (MPIs) as briefly described in Section III.

The developmental nature of young children’s cognition and language acquisition as well as the unique sociocultural contexts for language learning are reflected in all of the E-ELD Framework components, including the E-ELD Standards and language domains: language standards, language domains, age clusters, language levels, Features of Developmentally Appropriate Academic Language, Performance Definitions, and MPIs.

The E-ELD Standards include the language associated with the most frequently cited areas of development and learning which the National Education Goals panel (BUILD, 2012) deemed essential for preparing young children for future success: Social-Emotional Development, Physical Development, Early Language and Literacy, as well as Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies, which in many states are referred to as “Cognitive Development.” These E-ELD language standards were derived in part from reviewing states’ Early Learning Standards (ELS) and synthesizing them into six major standards that recognize the language that dual language learners, 2.5–5.5 years, will need to process and produce in order to succeed in age-appropriate content across early childhood environments. The six WIDA E-ELD Standards are:

1. The Language of Social-Emotional Development2. The Language of Early Language Development and Literacy3. The Language of Mathematics4. The Language of Science5. The Language of Social Studies6. The Language of Physical Development

Figure 2. Visual Representation of the Early English Language Development Standards

APPROACHES TO LEARNINGTHE LANGUAGE OF

Early Language& Literacy

Development

PhysicalDevelopment

Math • ScienceSocial Studies

CognitiveDevelopment

Social andEmotional

Development


5

Language domains in the E-ELD Framework include the general categories of receptive and expressive language in order to focus on the importance of oral language development during these early years. While early literacy encompasses the language domains of listening, speaking, reading and writing, oral language is central to both teaching and learning the early literacy skills of phonological and phonemic awareness, alphabet knowledge, concepts of print, vocabulary development, and the writing process (Dickinson, 2011; Dickinson, Golindoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2010; Dickinson, McCabe, & Sprague, 2003; Dickinson & Porche, 2011). Experts note that “speaking and listening are the foundation skills for reading and writing” and that in order “to read and write well by the end of third grade…children must have a solid foundation in oral language” (Resnick & Snow, 2009, p. 1). In fact, various studies have demonstrated that children’s oral language skills (including vocabulary) at ages 3–4 years are strong predictors for reading comprehension in grades 3 and 4 and even beyond (Bardige & Bardige, 2008; Bredemkamp & Copple, 2009; Castro, Páez, Dickinson, & Frede 2011; Dickinson, 2011; Dickinson, et al, 2010; Dickinson & Porche, 2011; Hart & Risely, 1995, 1999; Roskos, Tabors, & Lenhart, 2004; Resnick & Snow, 2009). Basically, children will need to learn the meaning of thousands of words, acquire various grammatical structures, and learn to use language for different purposes in order to become proficient readers in later years (Dickinson, et al, 2010; Dickinson & Porche, 2011). Young dual language learners who are learning English as an additional language may need even more opportunities to practice and master these foundational oral language skills as they learn to read and write. Thus, reading and writing have been incorporated into both the receptive and expressive language domains across all six standards to accommodate the emphasis on oral language when teaching and learning early literacy. This approach is also congruent with the nature of language standards which refer to “the language of” reading and writing rather than the underlying cognitive and mechanical processes that are required to engage in the complex tasks of reading and writing at this early age.

The integration of developmental and sociocultural theories in the age clusters, Features of Developmentally Appropriate Academic Language, Performance Definitions, and model performance indicators are provided in Section IV of this document.

3. Informed by Stages of Early Second Language Acquisition

Great variability exists as to how and when young dual language learners begin learning more than one language. Children may begin learning two or more languages simultaneously at birth from parents, other significant caregivers, or older siblings who speak different languages. Other children begin learning English sequentially upon entry to early care and education programs after they have spent varying amounts of time establishing their home language. Experts vary widely in their estimation as to when sequential or early second language acquisition begins, placing it any time after 18 months and before 5 years of age (DeHouwer, 2009; Genesee, 2010, McLaughlin, Blanchard & Osanai, 1995; Tabors, 2008; Escamilla, 2012). The timing of exposure, quantity and quality of input, and opportunity to use both languages is important because these variables may significantly affect the rate and pattern of development in each of dual language learners’ separate languages (Bedore, Cooperson, & Boerger, 2012; Bedore, Peña, Summers, Boerger, Resendiz, Greene, Bohman, & Gillman, 2012; Castro, Ayankoya, & Kasprzak, 2011; DeHouwer, 2009; Genesee, 2010). Given current studies related to the effects of early English exposure on preschool dual language learners it appears reasonable to define simultaneous language learning beginning before age 2 and sequential language learning beginning after age 2 for the purposes of the E-ELD theoretical Framework (Bedore, et al, 2012). However, more research needs to be conducted in this area.

Important differences exist between young bilingual and monolingual learners regarding the rate at which early developmental milestones are attained (Castro, el al, 2013) with average to low-average Mean Length of Utterances (MLUs) reported for bilingual children (Paradis, et al, 2011; Genesee, 2010). The quantity and rate of lexical


6

development within each language also differs (Paradis, et al, 2011; Patterson & Zurer Pearson, 2012). However, when bilingual children’s vocabulary across both languages is considered, their total vocabulary has been found to be similar to that of monolingual children (Paradis, et al, 2011; Patterson & Zurer Pearson, 2012). Experts also note that language processing as well as other subtle differences may exist beyond these major linguistic milestones that need to be considered when assessing dual language learners’ language development across two or more languages (Bedore, et al 2012; Conboy, 2012; Genesee, 2010).

In spite of these limitations, Bedore et al (2012) reported that “the overall pattern of morphosyntactic acquisition in Spanish and English is similar to the patterns observed in monolingual children” and may include a similar order of acquisition (p. 187). The authors conclude that studies on monolingual development can inform practitioners of the linguistic constructions young children need to acquire in order “to be competent communicators in each of their languages” (Bedore, et al, pp. 188-89). The E-ELD Standards Framework draws in part on this knowledge of monolingual development to inform the developmental parameters of the language levels and Performance Definitions. A more detailed explanation of how the language levels and Performance Definitions were derived is provided in Sections III and IV.

For children who are learning a language sequentially, researchers have identified four general developmental stages that children typically pass through: Home Language, Non-Verbal/ Observational, Telegraphic and Formulaic, and Productive Language (Espinosa, 2010; McLaughlin, et al, 1995; Tabors, 2008). These stages are very similar to the general linguistic stages of monolingual learners (except for stage one) and describe broad developmental stages dual language learners pass through as they acquire and use English (Genesee, 2010). Early childhood experts have primarily relied on these often cited stages to help practitioners identify, assess, and instruct young dual language learners who are acquiring English. However, these stages do not provide practitioners with specific receptive or expressive linguistic markers for determining where children may be in the English acquisition process.

The paradigm for early second language acquisition also limits children’s use of the home language to the earliest stage of English language acquisition. While young children will indeed rely on their home language before making the cognitive leap of figuring out that a language different than their own is being spoken (Tabors, 2008), it is not the only time during the English language acquisition process that they will use this important linguistic resource. Research demonstrates that bilingual children continuously use their home language to negotiate and construct meaning throughout the English language acquisition process (Beeman & Urow, 2013). The E-ELD Standards Framework incorporates these four general stages of early second language acquisition into three levels of English language development. The E-ELD language levels and accompanying Performance Definitions expand on these stages in three important ways:

1. The importance and influence of home language development at all levels of English language acquisition is indicated by its prominent position in the Performance Definitions (see Appendix E).

2. Expressive language has been expanded to include more specific markers in linguistic complexity and language usage within three distinct yet overlapping levels of language development in the Performance Definitions.

3. Receptive language is included with specific markers in linguistic complexity and language usage within three distinct yet overlapping levels of language development in the Performance Definitions (see Appendix E).


7

4. Validated by Authentic Language Samples of Dual Language Learners, 2.5–5.5 Years

Over 200 language samples were collected on approximately 30 dual language learners from three Head Start classrooms and three university daycare/preschool classrooms from May 2011–November 2012 to inform the E-ELD Performance Definitions. Teacher and parent interviews were conducted to gather language histories on the children who were learning two or more languages simultaneously or sequentially. Some of the simultaneous learners received input in one language at home and input in English from childcare providers beginning within the first few weeks of life. Other simultaneous learners were from homes where one or both parents spoke the home language and/or English and a grandparent spoke the home language. Children who were learning English sequentially also came from varying circumstances—some being exposed to English for the very first time upon entering Head Start or preschool at age 3 or 4 and others being exposed to English since toddlerhood upon entry to childcare programs.

Home languages of the dual language learners in the Head Start programs were primarily Spanish and Hmong although one child heard French and an African language from her grandmother on a consistent basis. Dual language learners from the university-based child care/preschool program spoke a wide variety of home languages including Hungarian, Chinese, Tibetan, Spanish, and Portuguese. Lead teachers in the Head Start classrooms and in the university-based childcare/preschool classrooms were English-speaking and instruction was conducted primarily in English. However, Head Start classrooms had Spanish-speaking and/or Hmong-speaking teacher assistants who supported children in Spanish and Hmong throughout their program day in various ways including leading small group activities in their home languages.

Receptive and expressive language samples were taken during circle time, free-choice play, snack, story time, small and large group activities, lunch, and outdoor play in an effort to capture children’s language throughout the developmental/content areas of the E-ELD standards over a range of activities with differing cognitive and linguistic demands. Videotapes of children’s receptive and expressive language samples were later coded electronically by age, perceived language development level in English, learning activity, and E-ELD Standard. The videotapes were then used to refine and validate the E-ELD Performance Definitions for three age clusters in receptive and expressive language as detailed in the following section.

5. Development of Language Levels and Performance Definitions

In many ways, the language levels and Performance Definitions form the heart of the E-ELD Standards Framework. The Performance Definitions provide practitioners with descriptions of the linguistic complexity and language usage dual language learners typically demonstrate at the different stages of English language acquisition and serve as a practical guide for both assessing and supporting dual language learners at three different levels of language development. The Performance Definitions also serve as an anchor or foundation for the MPIs, which provide practitioners with concrete examples for scaffolding language receptively and expressively within a variety of sociocultural contexts at different levels of language development. The Performance Definitions for the three levels of language development: 1-Entering, 3-Developing, and 5-Bridging, are based on previously discussed research on simultaneous and early sequential dual language learners, authentic language samples of dual language learners, standardized developmental and language assessments, PreK English language proficiency tests, and practitioner experience and input. A detailed description follows as to how the language levels and performance definitions were derived.

Language levels: Three early language development levels have been identified to describe dual language learners’ acquisition of English: Entering, Developing, and Bridging. These levels align to WIDA’s five language proficiency levels for K–12 but reflect the cognitive and linguistic capacities of 2.5–5.5 year-olds who have not yet developed the more abstract reasoning skills and complex linguistic nuances of older students. Descriptions of the language these very young children are able to process and produce at each language level are provided in the Performance Definitions (see Appendix E).


8

Age clusters: The Performance Definitions are provided for three different age clusters; 2.5–3.5 years (30–42 mos.), 3.5–4.5 years (43–54 mos.), and 4.5–5.5 years (55–66 mos.) to accommodate the significant cognitive and linguistic developmental differences that occur in that age span. Typically developing 3-year-olds, monolingual or bilingual, cannot be expected to comprehend or produce language of the same linguistic complexity as that of 5-year-olds. The age clusters take this cognitive and linguistic “threshold” of young children into account so that the requirements for linguistic complexity and language usage for a 3-year-old are very different than that of a 4-year-old or 5-year-old (see Figure 2).

Figure 3. Early English Language Development Performance Definitions

Language Criteria Ages 2.5-3.5 Years (30-42 mos.) Ages 3.5-4.5 Years (43-54 mos.)

Level 5Bridging

Linguistic Complexity

Language Usage

• Multiple phrases and some familiar 3+ word sentences

• Expression of single ideas

• Emerging comprehensibility of familiar phrases and short sentences

• General and a few specific vocabulary words associated with familiar environments

• Variety of original sentences of 3-5+ words• Emerging expression of related ideas

• Comprehensible sentences that may contain nouns, verbs, modifiers, and pronouns

• Specific and a few technical vocabulary words associated with various environments

Language Criteria Age 4.5-5.5 Years (55-66 Months)

Level 5Bridging


Language Usage

• Variety of short and expanded sentences of 4-6+ words• Expression of related ideas

• Comprehensible sentences that may contain specific grammatical forms (e.g., present progressive + verb, past tense, plurals, possessives, and articles)

• Specific and some technical vocabulary words associated with various environments and learning activities

Language Criteria Ages 2.5-3.5 Years (30-42 mos.) Ages 3.5-4.5 Years (43-54 mos.)

Level 5Bridging


Language Usage

• Series of simple sentences related to familiar stories or events

• An idea with 1-2 details; 1-step direction related to daily routine

• Short and compound sentences related to daily routine, familiar people, songs, and stories

• General and some specific vocabulary words associated with familiar environments and stories

• Series of extended sentences related to familiar stories, learning activities, or events

• Related ideas; 2-step directions related to daily routine

• Compound and some complex sentences related to familiar stories and learning activities

• Specific vocabulary words associated with stories, learning activities, and various environments

Language Criteria Age 4.5-5.5 Years (55-66 Months)

Level 5Bridging


Language Usage

• Sentences/questions of varying richness and complexity related to familiar stories, learning activities, or events• Expanded related ideas; 2-3 step directions related to daily routine and some novel directions

• Complex sentences and language patterns related to familiar stories and instructional activities• Specific and some technical vocabulary words associated with various environments and learning activities

Expressive

Receptive


9

Features of Developmentally Appropriate Academic Language: Based in part on WIDA’s Features of Academic Language for K–12, the E-ELD features provide the structure for language criteria (linguistic complexity and language usage) used in the Performance Definitions. The features have been reconfigured and renamed to fit the unique characteristics of young children’s developing linguistic abilities during the early preschool years based on input from experts in early childhood development and second language acquisition (see Appendix E). As such, linguistic complexity was altered to include children’s variety and length of utterances and interactions as well as their understanding and expression of ideas at the discourse level. The other language criterion, language usage, was created to incorporate children’s developing use of semantics, syntax, and pragmatics in language and includes: choice of intonation to convey meaning, types and variety of grammatical structures, match of language forms to purpose, specificity of word/phrase choice (vocabulary), and comprehensibility of language (forms, conventions, and fluency).

Performance Definitions: The E-ELD Performance Definitions for English were modeled after WIDA’s Performance Definitions for K–12 in structure, but the content refers solely to dual language learners, ages 2.5–5.5 years. Listed below are the five major steps used to develop and refine the content of the Performance Definitions.

1. Linguistic complexity and language usage for each age cluster and language level were derived by first establishing a developmental ceiling or threshold for each age cluster. This was accomplished by creating a linguistic developmental trajectory for receptive and expressive language for each age range by reviewing commonly used standardized developmental and language assessments for children, 2.5–5.5 years, including the Preschool Language Scales, 5th Edition (PLS-5) (Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, 2011), The Battelle Developmental Inventory, 2nd Edition (Newborg, 2005), Ages & Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3) (Squires & Bricker, 2009), as well as the widely used formative assessment Teaching Strategies GOLD—Objectives for Development & Learning (Heroman, Burts, Berke, Bickart, & Tabors, 2010). Although these assessments are designed for monolingual English learners, borrowing from currently available literature on bilingual language acquisition, which posits that simultaneous language learning at least partially mimics monolingual language learning (Bedore, et al, 2013; Genesee, 2010; Pardis, Genesee, & Crago, 2011; Tabors, 2008), they were used to ensure that the highest E-ELD Language Level did not exceed children’s cognitive and linguistic capacity. Again, borrowing from the literature that simultaneous bilinguals generally reach average to low-average MLUs in English when compared to monolingual English speakers, linguistic complexity at the highest Language Level was adjusted accordingly.

2. The literature on early second language acquisition (see Section III) was then used to help determine expected linguistic complexity and language usage for Level 1–Entering and Level 3–Developing. In addition, several formative assessments with language domains/objectives designed for assessing English language acquisition in dual language learners, 2.5–5.5 years, such as the Teaching Strategies GOLD—Objectives for Development & Learning (Heroman, Burts, Berke, Bickart, & Tabors, 2010) and the Desired Results Developmental Profile-PS (DRDP-PS) California Department of Education (2010) were reviewed to ensure that each Language Level and corresponding Performance Definition was linguistically accurate.

3. The Performance Definitions for each Language Level were also examined for linguistic accuracy using the following Preschool English language proficiency tests: Pre-IPT (Ballard & Tighe, 2006), preLAS 2000 (Duncan & De Avila, 1998), and the preLAS Observational Assessment for 3-Year-Olds (Bailey, 2011). However, when test items were compared with previously mentioned developmental and language assessments, it was discovered that many morphosyntactic and/or semantic features of English were expected at younger ages on the proficiency tests than on the developmental and language assessments.


10

This concurs with recent findings cited by Bedore, et al, (2012) in which native English speakers received less than “fluent” scores on proficiency tests prompting the authors to suggest that proficiency tests may “exact too high a standard” or “set too high a bar” (p.3). Because of these developmental discrepancies, proficiency tests were not used to set the upper linguistic thresholds of the E-ELD Performance Definitions.

4. Over 200 language samples from dual language learners were analyzed by age cluster for linguistic complexity and language usage in receptive and expressive language. Information gathered from various language samples was used to refine and verify the three language levels and accompanying Performance Definitions over the three age clusters. Preliminary analysis has shown that dual language learners who have been learning English simultaneously before 2 years of age reach Level 5 of the E-ELD language levels. It should also be noted that all of the dual language learners who reached Level 5 in both receptive and expressive language received consistent and regular input in English in childcare/preschool or Early Head Start/Head Start settings. This seems to concur with current research that young children take 3–5 years to acquire English with native-like oral proficiency (Hakuta, Goto, Butler, and Witt, 2000; Paradis, Genesee, & Crago, 2011). It also concurs with reported findings of the central role rich consistent language input and opportunities for using language play in second language acquisition (Bedore, et al, 2012; Bedore, et al, 2013). However, because of the small sample size and limited geographical area in which language samples were taken, more analysis is required before conclusive evidence is reported on this preliminary finding.

5. The language levels and Performance Definitions have been reviewed by over 100 Early Childhood practitioners and administrators who work with dual language learners, ages 2.5–5.5 years. They have concurred with the ranges for linguistic complexity and language usage within each Language Level and Age Cluster. In fact, feedback from the field indicates that practitioners feel the Performance Definitions more closely match the cognitive and linguistic developmental levels of 2.5–5.5 year-olds than many existing English language proficiency tests.

Model Performance Indicators: MPIs provide examples of how children are able to process and produce language within specific sociocultural contexts at the three levels of early English language development for each age cluster. The Performance Definitions were used to ensure that the linguistic and cognitive demands for each language level and age cluster in the MPIs were developmentally and linguistically accurate. The MPIs, which contain a language function, content or topic stem, and language support, are designed to help practitioners scaffold children’s language during instruction and formative assessments. MPIs are transformable and it is expected that practitioners and/or programs will change sociocultural contexts for learning, cognitive functions, topic-related vocabulary, and other aspects of MPIs to accommodate the linguistic and cultural needs of the dual language learners in their programs. See Appendix F for examples of MPIs across different standards.

6. Conclusion

While embracing WIDA’s standards-based approach to supporting, instructing, and assessing children who are learning English as an additional language in K–12, the Early English Language Development (E-ELD) Standards Framework remains grounded in age-appropriate developmental theory, guided by Vygotskian sociocultural theory, and corresponds with states’ Early Learning Standards. This unique combination ensures the viability and continuity of using the WIDA Standards Framework for both assessing and instructing students who are acquiring English as an additional language from early preschool through Grade 12.


11

Borrowing from current research on simultaneous and sequential bilingual language development and utilizing authentic language samples of dual language learners, 2.5–5.5 years, the E-ELD Standards Framework expands on existing tools by providing specific guidelines for supporting and assessing language across six developmental/content standards. Reviewed and verified by authentic language samples of both simultaneous and sequential dual language learners, 2.5–5.5 years, the E-ELD language levels and accompanying Performance Definitions reflect in part today’s diverse population of young children who are learning English as an additional language. While more research is needed regarding the developmental trajectory of language acquisition in dual language learners, birth–5 years, it is hoped that WIDA’s E-ELD Standards Framework is an important first step in offering culturally and linguistically relevant standards-based assessment and instructional tools for dual language learners.


12

ReferencesAdvisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation (August 2012). Final report. Cultural and Linguistic

Responsiveness (chapter 6). Submitted to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Bailey, A. (2011). preLAS observational assessment for 3 year olds. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.

Bailey, A., Huang, Y., Osipova, A., & Beauregard, S. (2013). Transitions in the academic language environments of young English language learners: Explorations science activity settings in preschool and Kindergarten. Unpublished manuscript. Center for Community Partnerships, University of California, Los Angeles.

Ballard & Tighe (2006). Pre-IPT, 3rd edition. Educational IDEAS, Inc.

Bardige, B. & Bardige, M. K. (2008). Talk to me, baby! Zero to Three.

Bedore, L., Cooperson, S. J., & Boerger, K. (2013). Morphosyntactic development. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual Language Development & Disorders in Spanish-English Speakers, 2nd Edition. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Bedore, L. & Peña, E. (2008). Assessment of bilingual children for identification of language impairment: current findings and implications for practice. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(1).

Bedore, L., Peña, E., Summers, C., Boerger, K., Resendiz, M., Greene, K., Bohman, T., & Gillam, R. (2012). The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish-English bilingual children. Cambridge Journals, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1-14. Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Beeman, K. & Urow, C. (2013). Teaching for biliteracy. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon, Inc.

Berk, L. & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early childhood education. Washington, DC : National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).

Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. (2007). Tools of the mind, 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Bredemkamp, S. & Copple, C. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).

BUILD Initiative. (2012). Top ten recommendations for state leaders implementing Kindergarten entry assessments. Retrieved online March 9, 2013 at www.elccollaborative.org/assessment/77-kindergarten-entry-assessment.html

California Department of Education (2010). Desired results developmental profile-PS (DRDP-PS).

Castro, D., Ayankoya, B., & Kasprzak, C. (2011). New voices, nuevas voces. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing, Inc.


13

Castro, D.C., García, E.E, & Markos, A. M (2013). Dual language learners: Research informing policy. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, Center for Early Care and Education—Dual Language Learners.

Castro, D.C., Páez M. M., Dickinson, D.K. & Frede E. (2011). Promoting language and literacy in young dual language learners: Research, practice, and policy. Child Development Perspectives, 5 (1), 15-21.

Conboy, B. (2013). Language processing and production in infants and toddlers. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual Language Development & Disorders in Spanish-English Speakers, 2nd Edition. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Dickinson, D.K. (2011). Teachers’ language practices and academic outcomes of preschool children. Science, 333, 964-967.

Dickinson, D.K., Golinkoff, R.M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2010). Speaking out for language: Why language is central to reading development. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 305-310.

Dickinson, D.K. ,McCabe, A., & Sprague, K. (2003). Teacher rating of oral language literacy (TROLL): Individualizing early literacy instruction with a standards-based rating tool. The Reading Teacher, 56(6), 554-564.

Dickinson, D.K. & Porche, M. (2011). Relation between language experiences in preschool classrooms and children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities. Child Development, 82 (3), 870-886.

DeHouwer, A. (2009). Bilingual first language acquisition. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Duncan, S.E. & De Avila, E. A. (1998). preLAS 2000. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.

Escamilla, K. (2012). Literacy Squared: Building Trajectories toward Biliteracy. December 6, 2012. 36th Annual Statewide Conference for Teachers Serving Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students. and children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities.

Espinosa, L. (2010). Getting it right for young children from diverse backgrounds. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

García, E. & Frede, E. (Eds). (2010). Young English language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Genesee, F. (2010). Dual language development in preschool children. In E. García & E. Frede, (Eds). Young English Language Learners: Current Research and Emerging Directions for Practice and Policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Glassman, M. (1994). All things being equal: The two roads of Piaget and Vygotsky. Developmental Review, 14 (3).

Hart, B. & Risely, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.


14

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1999). The social world of children learning to talk. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Heroman, C., Burts, D., Berke, K. Bickart, T., Tabors, P. (2010). Teaching strategies GOLD: Objectives for development & learning. Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies.

Hakuta, K., Goto Butler, Y., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? Policy report for the University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from http://www.standford.edu/~hakuta/

McLaughlin, B. Blanchard, A. G., & Osanai, Y. (1995). Assessing language development in bilingual preschool children. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education Program Information Guide Series, Number 22.

Newborg, J. (2005). Battelle developmental inventory, 2nd Edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Office of Head Start, (2010). The head start child development and early learning framework. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. (2011). Dual language development & disorders: A handbook on bilingualism & second language learning, 2nd edition. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Patterson, J. L. & Zurer Pearson, B. (2013). Bilingual lexical development, assessment, and intervention. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual Language Development & Disorders in Spanish-English Speakers, 2nd Edition. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Resnick, L. & Snow, C. (2009). Speaking and listening for preschool through third grade, revised edition. Washington, DC: New Standards, University of Pittsburg and the National Center on Education and the Economy.

Roskos, K., Tabors, P., & Lenhart, L. (2004). Oral language and early literacy in preschool. Newar, DE: International Reading Association.

Squires & Bricker (2009). Ages & stages questionnaires, 3rd edition (ASQ-3). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Tabors, P. (2008). One child, two languages, 2nd Edition. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Zimmerman, I.L., Steiner, V., & Pond, R. E. (2011). Preschool language scales, 5th edition (PLS-5). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson, Inc.


15

Appendix A. Can Do PhilosophyThe WIDA (World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment) Consortium has been built by educators who work with English language learners (ELLs) in their classrooms, schools, districts, and states. As a group of dedicated professionals from multiple disciplines (including, but not limited to, curriculum and instruction, language education, evaluation research, applied linguistics, and measurement), our team serves as a conduit for bridging language theory to research and research to practice as informed by assessment. We approach the development and dissemination of our tools and resources as a means for educators to gain a deeper and richer understanding of their own work with ELLs.

WIDA has a Can Do Philosophy, which accentuates the positive qualities and assets of our ELLs. Throughout the process of developing our products and services, WIDA envisions our students as contributors to the changing educational landscape as we serve as advocates on their behalf. In representing its member states, the goal of the Consortium is to promote the accomplishments and potential of ELL students throughout the greater educational community.

Our Can Do Philosophy is visible in our Principles of Language Development. As a cornerstone of our language standards, these principles, supported by a strong literature base, highlight how students develop and use language. We recognize the critical role of academic language as a vehicle for students to access grade-level content, actively engage in learning, and succeed in school and beyond.

Our Can Do Philosophy is visible in the WIDA English Language Development (ELD) Standards. Since 2004, WIDA has designed standards around the language demands ELLs encounter in classrooms; that is, the language of school. In doing so, we recognize the importance of students’ development of social and instructional language. However, to help guide the academic success of ELLs, our efforts have centered on representing the academic language requisite for students to access to grade-level content. The WIDA ELP Standards help educators set reasonable expectations for students’ language development and recognize the growth in their students’ academic English language proficiency.

Our Can Do Philosophy is visible in the Can Do Descriptors. Based on survey research across WIDA states, this resource was originally intended to support teachers’ use of ACCESS for ELLs test results to inform their instructional practice and share language expectations with family members. Today, the Descriptors enjoy wide-spread use throughout the school year as language teachers and content teachers co-plan and co-construct lessons and units differentiated according to what ELLs at different proficiency levels can do in each language domain.

Our Can Do Philosophy is visible in all our assessments. We built ACCESS for ELLs, our K–12 annual accountability measure, as a three-tiered test so that students encounter questions targeted at their current range of English language proficiency. Students are thus able to show what they can do now, rather than what they cannot yet do. Every year, we replace approximately one-third of all test items to ascertain an accurate measurement of students’ linguistic abilities and ensure that the assessment reflects our most current understanding of how academic language can best be measured in each language domain. Our philosophy carries over to the WIDA MODEL, a screening or interim language proficiency measure that provides teachers a tool for making initial placement decisions and data for instructional planning. With the development of our FLARE products and services, Language Learning Progressions serve as the foundation for gaining formative data on our ELLs. Finally, the ONPAR Science and Mathematics assessments will show that even beginning ELLs can express content knowledge in mathematics and science on


16

large-scale tests through innovative item types that significantly reduce the language load and engage students with interactive computer-based response modes.

Our Can Do Philosophy is visible in our professional development. We believe that ELLs are individuals who bring knowledge, skills, and strengths to their education. We also believe that educators possess the key to unleashing their students’ potential. Our goal is to provide educators with supports, services, and resources to sustain long- term, ongoing, and onsite professional growth in their journey to educational excellence. For this, we have developed and implemented a variety of opportunities for schools and districts to incorporate into a comprehensive professional development system for their educators, ranging from one-hour webinars to semester-long courses. Through these diverse opportunities, we are able to provide more access to more educators. CLIMBS is a semester long course that brings school teams together to collaborate in the planning, instruction, and assessment of ELLs. Our Certification academies are another way we are trying to build capacity across our Consortium in the dissemination of our products and services. Currently, through LADDER for Language Learners, we are creating another professional development opportunity for educators to build capacity in their schools and districts in the appropriate use of data to inform systemic and systematic decisions in the education of language learners.

Our Can Do Philosophy is visible in our research. WIDA’s ongoing research focuses on five main areas of inquiry: alignment, the relationship between academic language proficiency and academic achievement, classroom implementation of standards, teacher development, and policy guidance. The research team seeks to provide timely, meaningful, and actionable results to stakeholders. Data from our research studies have served to verify the alignment of WIDA’s standards and assessments to state content standards, validate the results of WIDA assessments, define academic language development, and determine the time needed to achieve academic language proficiency. The WIDA research team also provides states and districts with technical assistance on accountability, data management, and ACCESS for ELLs score interpretation. This assistance builds local capacity and encourages the development of policies that are in the best interests of ELLs. All our research is aimed at promoting awareness of the unique traits and abilities of ELLs and how educators and policy-makers alike can foster their achievement.

As educational partners, the efforts of all stakeholders, from paraprofessionals to superintendents, make a difference in the education of our ELL students. Together, by focusing on what our ELLs can do, we can send a powerful message that students from diverse linguistic, cultural, and experiential backgrounds enrich our schools and communities.


17

Appendix B. WIDA’s Guiding Principles of Language Development1. Students’ languages and cultures are valuable resources to be tapped and incorporated into schooling.

Escamilla & Hopewell (2010); Goldenberg & Coleman (2010); Garcia (2005); Freeman, Freeman, & Mercuri (2002); González, Moll, & Amanti (2005); Scarcella (1990)

2. Students’ home, school, and community experiences influence their language development.

Nieto (2008); Payne (2003); Collier (1995); California State Department of Education (1986)

3. Students draw on their metacognitive, metalinguistic, and metacultural awareness to develop proficiency in additional languages.

Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan (2009); Bialystok (2007); Chamot & O’Malley (1994); Bialystok (1991); Cummins (1978)

4. Students’ academic language development in their native language facilitates their academic language development in English. Conversely, students’ academic language development in English informs their academic language development in their native language.

Escamilla & Hopewell (2010); Gottlieb, Katz, & Ernst-Slavit (2009); Tabors (2008); Espinosa (2009); August & Shanahan (2006); Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian (2006); Snow (2005); Genesee, Paradis, & Crago (2004); August & Shanahan (2006); Riches & Genesee (2006); Gottlieb (2003); Schleppegrell & Colombi (2002); Lindholm & Molina (2000); Pardo & Tinajero (1993)

5. Students learn language and culture through meaningful use and interaction.

Brown (2007); Garcia & Hamayan, (2006); Garcia (2005); Kramsch (2003); Díaz-Rico & Weed (1995); Halliday & Hasan (1989); Damen (1987)

6. Students use language in functional and communicative ways that vary according to context.

Schleppegrell (2004); Halliday (1976); Finocchiaro & Brumfit (1983)

7. Students develop language proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing interdependently, but at different rates and in different ways.

Gottlieb & Hamayan (2007); Spolsky (1989); Vygotsky (1962)

8. Students’ development of academic language and academic content knowledge are inter-related processes.

Gibbons (2009); Collier & Thomas (2009); Gottlieb, Katz, & Ernst-Slavit (2009); Echevarria, Vogt, & Short(2008); Zwiers (2008); Gee (2007); Bailey (2007); Mohan (1986)

9. Students’ development of social, instructional, and academic language, a complex and long-term process, is the foundation for their success in school.

Anstrom, et.al. (2010); Francis, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Rivera (2006); Bailey & Butler (2002); Cummins (1979)

10. Students’ access to instructional tasks requiring complex thinking is enhanced when linguistic complexity and instructional support match their levels of language proficiency.

Gottlieb, Katz, & Ernst-Slavit (2009); Gibbons (2009, 2002); Vygotsky (1962)


18

Appendix C. WIDA Standards FrameworkWIDA’s view of language has evolved from various theoretical perspectives. The WIDA Standards Framework, in large part, reflects a functional view of language. According to Halliday and Hasan (1989), language is one of many systems of meaning making used in everyday life. Language is learned in context where individuals use language necessary to participate in the situations they encounter. In turn, learning is mediated and expanded by everyday social interaction. A functional approach to language connects to a communicative purpose where language features are tied to a particular activity.

Several principles representing key theories of language, language development, and recent research on academic uses of language underlie WIDA’s standards. First, communicative purpose is an organizing frame for language use. Language serves as a vehicle that enables us to accomplish what we need to do linguistically to make sense of the world. The advantage of a functional approach is that language is not taught for its own sake; “rather, it demonstrates how language operates in all areas of the curriculum” (Derewianka, 1990, p.4). Within the context of schooling, a focus on function, or communicative purpose, helps explain the shift between language used for everyday purposes and the more precise language needed for conceptual knowledge (Moschkovich, 2002). Each content area has unique patterns of language use or communicative functions (Schleppegrell, 2004), and each of these functions is related to certain organizational patterns influenced by grammatical and communicative rules to accomplish specific purposes. When teachers make language functions explicit, they define more fully the tasks that students must be able to perform in the content areas (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994) and can help to focus students and teachers on meaning making (Gee, 2008; Moschkovich, 2002).

Second, language occurs within a communicative context. Children and students learn language through meaningful use and interaction in contexts which are both socially and culturally bound (Brown, 2007; Damen, 1987; Díaz-Rico & Weed, 1995; García & Hamayan, 2006; García, 2005; Kramsch, 1998; Halliday & Hasan, 1989). In early childhood programs and school, direct and frequent opportunities to interact are needed for language development (Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2002), and it is through negotiation of meaning that language learners extend their productive capabilities (Ellis, 1985; Swain, 1995). A language-rich environment that surrounds students with oral and written discourse provides opportunities for ongoing interaction and engagement in academic conversations and writing for a variety of purposes (Frey, Fisher, & Rothenberg, 2008; Zwiers, 2008).

Lastly, second language and literacy development occurs over multiple years and depends on many factors. It develops at different rates and in different sequences (Araujo, 2002; Fitzgerald & Noble, 2000; Pérez, 1994). Children and students’ varied experiences and backgrounds in addition to programing and the opportunities for learning shape their linguistic and academic profiles. Recent research shows that language growth occurs more slowly at intermediate levels of proficiency than at beginning levels of proficiency (Cook, Boals, & Lundberg, 2001). All of these factors result in a wide range of language proficiencies and paths toward academic progress. Practitioners must take into account each student’s stage of language development to provide relevant instructional practices (Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan 2009). Since language development is a complex long-term process, students should have access to age and/or grade-level curriculum concurrently with language instruction. Research indicates that with access to age-appropriate content, ELLs’ academic literacy development improves (Short, Echevarría, & Richards-Tutor, 2011).


19

Appendix D. Features of Developmentally Appropriate Academic Language for 2.5–5.5-Year-Olds

Language Criteria Features

Linguistic Complexity(Quantity and variety of oral language)

Variety and length of utterances and interactions

Understanding and expression of ideas

Language Usage(Types and use of oral language structures, phrases, and words)

Types and variety of grammatical structures

Match of language forms to purpose

Formulaic phrases and expressions

Choice of intonation to convey meaning

Interpretation and ability to construct meaning at word/phrase level

Specificity of word/phrase choice

Comprehensibility of language

The sociocultural contexts for language use involve the interaction between children and their language environments, encompassing …

• Register• Topic• Task/Situation• Participants’ identities and social roles• Speaker/Conversational partner

A Th

eore

tical

Fra

mew

ork

for E

arly

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Dev

elop

men

t (E-

ELD

) Sta

ndar

ds fo

r Dua

l Lan

guag

e Le

arne

rs

20

App

endi

x E.

Per

form

ance

Defi

niti

ons

Earl

y En

glis

h La

ngua

ge D

evel

opm

ent P

erfo

rman

ce D

efini

tion

s - E

xpre

ssiv

e La

ngua

ge

At a

ll le

vels

of

lang

uage

ac

quis

itio

n,

hom

e la

ngua

ge

and

Eng

lish

lang

uage

de

velo

pmen

t

• in

fluen

ce a

nd

rein

forc

e ea

ch

othe

r; an

d

• m

edia

te

unde

rsta

ndin

g,

cons

truc

tion

of

mea

ning

, and

de

mon

strat

ion

of

know

ledg

e.

Tow

ard

the

end

of e

ach

age

clus

ter a

nd g

iven

leve

l of E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent,

and

with

sens

ory

and

inte

ract

ive

supp

orts,

dua

l lan

guag

e le

arne

rs w

ill p

rodu

ce in

Eng

lish:

…w

ithin

soci

ocul

tura

l con

text

s for

lang

uage

use

.

© M

arch

201

3, B

oard

of R

egen

ts of

the U

nive

rsity

of W

iscon

sin S

yste

m o

n be

half

of th

e WID

A C

onso

rtiu

m-D

RAFT

HOME LANGUAGE

Lang

uage

Cri

teri

aA

ges

2.5-

3.5

Year

s (3

0-42

mos

.)A

ges

3.5-

4.5

Year

s (4

3-54

mos

.)

Leve

l 5Br

idgi

ng

Ling

uist

ic

Com

plex

ity

Lang

uage

Usa

ge

• M

ultip

le p

hras

es a

nd so

me

fam

iliar

3+

wor

d se

nten

ces

• Ex

pres

sion

of si

ngle

idea

s

• Em

ergi

ng c

ompr

ehen

sibili

ty o

f fam

iliar

phr

ases

and

sh

ort s

ente

nces

• G

ener

al a

nd a

few

spec

ific

voca

bula

ry w

ords

ass

ocia

ted

with

fam

iliar

env

ironm

ents

• Va

riety

of o

rigin

al se

nten

ces o

f 3-5

+ w

ords

• Em

ergi

ng e

xpre

ssio

n of

rela

ted

idea

s

• C

ompr

ehen

sible

sent

ence

s tha

t may

con

tain

nou

ns, v

erbs

, m

odifi

ers,

and

pron

ouns

• Sp

ecifi

c an

d a

few

tech

nica

l voc

abul

ary

wor

ds a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith v

ario

us e

nviro

nmen

ts

Leve

l 3D

evel

opin

g

Ling

uist

ic

Com

plex

ity

Lang

uage

Usa

ge

• Ph

rase

s with

a fe

w fa

mili

ar 3

-wor

d se

nten

ces

• Em

ergi

ng e

xpre

ssio

n of

sing

le id

eas

• Fa

mili

ar p

hras

es w

ith e

mer

ging

com

preh

ensib

ility

• Sh

ort r

epet

itive

lang

uage

pat

tern

s use

d in

fam

iliar

fin

gerp

lays

, son

gs, a

nd st

orie

s •

Gen

eral

voc

abul

ary

wor

ds a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith fa

mili

ar

envi

ronm

ents

• Sh

ort s

ente

nces

of 3

-4 w

ords

that

com

bine

form

ulai

c ph

rase

s with

som

e ne

w w

ords

and

phr

ases

• Em

ergi

ng e

xpre

ssio

n of

idea

s

• Sh

ort s

ente

nces

with

em

ergi

ng c

ompr

ehen

sibili

ty

• Re

petit

ive

lang

uage

pat

tern

s use

d in

fing

erpl

ays,

song

s, sto

ries,

or le

arni

ng a

ctiv

ities

• G

ener

al a

nd a

few

spec

ific

voca

bula

ry w

ords

ass

ocia

ted

with

fam

iliar

env

ironm

ents;

com

mon

exp

ress

ions

Leve

l 1En

teri

ng

Ling

uist

ic

Com

plex

ity

Lang

uage

Usa

ge

• W

ords

and

shor

t for

mul

aic

phra

ses

• 1-

wor

d ut

tera

nces

to c

onve

y en

tire

mes

sage

• Si

ngle

wor

ds a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith d

aily

rout

ine

and

fam

iliar

sto

ries

• Re

petit

ive

phra

ses

• W

ords

and

form

ulai

c ph

rase

s•

1-2

wor

d ut

tera

nces

to c

onve

y en

tire

mes

sage

or i

dea

• Fa

mili

ar w

ords

and

exp

ress

ions

ass

ocia

ted

with

dai

ly

rout

ine

• Re

petit

ive

and

form

ulai

c ph

rase

s •

Gen

eral

voc

abul

ary

wor

ds re

late

d to

fam

iliar

env

ironm

ents

At th

e ve

ry b

egin

ning

stag

es o

f Eng

lish

lang

uage

acq

uisit

ion,

dua

l lan

guag

e le

arne

rs ty

pica

lly u

nder

stand

mor

e w

ords

than

they

are

abl

e to

pro

duce

. Chi

ldre

n m

ay b

e no

n-ve

rbal

in E

nglis

h an

d re

ly p

rimar

ily o

n th

eir h

ome

lang

uage

and

/or g

estu

res t

o co

mm

unic

ate

thei

r nee

ds, w

ants,

and

idea

s.

A Th

eore

tical

Fra

mew

ork

for E

arly

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Dev

elop

men

t (E-

ELD

) Sta

ndar

ds fo

r Dua

l Lan

guag

e Le

arne

rs

21

Earl

y En

glis

h La

ngua

ge D

evel

opm

ent P

erfo

rman

ce D

efini

tion

s - E

xpre

ssiv

e La

ngua

ge

© M

arch

201

3, B

oard

of R

egen

ts of

the U

nive

rsity

of W

iscon

sin S

yste

m o

n be

half

of th

e WID

A C

onso

rtiu

m-D

RAFT

Tow

ard

the

end

of e

ach

age

clus

ter a

nd g

iven

leve

l of E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent,

and

with

sens

ory

and

inte

ract

ive

supp

orts,

dua

l lan

guag

e le

arne

rs w

ill p

rodu

ce:

…w

ithin

soci

ocul

tura

l con

text

s for

lang

uage

use

.

HOME LANGUAGE

Lang

uage

Cri

teri

aA

ge 4

.5-5

.5 Y

ears

(55-

66 M

onth

s)

Leve

l 5Br

idgi

ng

Ling

uist

ic

Com

plex

ity

Lang

uage

Usa

ge

• Va

riety

of s

hort

and

exp

ande

d se

nten

ces o

f 4-6

+ w

ords

• Ex

pres

sion

of re

late

d id

eas

• C

ompr

ehen

sible

sent

ence

s tha

t may

con

tain

spec

ific

gram

mat

ical

form

s (e

.g.,

pres

ent p

rogr

essiv

e +

verb

, pas

t ten

se, p

lura

ls, p

osse

ssiv

es, a

nd a

rtic

les)

• Sp

ecifi

c an

d so

me

tech

nica

l voc

abul

ary

wor

ds a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith v

ario

us e

nviro

nmen

ts an

d le

arni

ng

activ

ities

Leve

l 3D

evel

opin

g

Ling

uist

ic

Com

plex

ity

Lang

uage

Usa

ge

• Sh

ort s

ente

nces

of 3

-4 w

ords

that

com

bine

form

ulai

c ph

rase

s with

new

wor

ds a

nd so

me

expa

nded

se

nten

ces

• Em

ergi

ng e

xpre

ssio

n of

rela

ted

idea

s

• Sh

ort a

nd so

me

expa

nded

sent

ence

s with

em

ergi

ng c

ompr

ehen

sibili

ty•

Mul

tiple

repe

titiv

e la

ngua

ge p

atte

rns u

sed

in st

orie

s, so

ngs,

and

lear

ning

act

iviti

es•

Gen

eral

and

som

e sp

ecifi

c vo

cabu

lary

wor

ds a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith fa

mili

ar e

nviro

nmen

ts an

d le

arni

ng

activ

ities

Leve

l 1En

teri

ng

Ling

uist

ic

Com

plex

ity

Lang

uage

Usa

ge

• W

ords

and

long

er fo

rmul

aic

phra

ses

• 1-

2 w

ord

utte

ranc

es to

con

vey

entir

e m

essa

ge o

r ide

as

• W

ords

and

exp

ress

ions

ass

ocia

ted

with

dai

ly ro

utin

e an

d fa

mili

ar st

orie

s•

Repe

titiv

e an

d fo

rmul

aic

phra

ses

• G

ener

al v

ocab

ular

y w

ords

rela

ted

to fa

mili

ar e

nviro

nmen

ts an

d le

arni

ng a

ctiv

ities

At th

e ve

ry b

egin

ning

stag

es o

f Eng

lish

lang

uage

acq

uisit

ion,

dua

l lan

guag

e le

arne

rs ty

pica

lly u

nder

stand

mor

e w

ords

than

they

are

abl

e to

pro

duce

. C

hild

ren

may

be

non-

verb

al in

Eng

lish

and

rely

prim

arily

on

thei

r hom

e la

ngua

ge a

nd/o

r ges

ture

s to

com

mun

icat

e th

eir n

eeds

, wan

ts, a

nd id

eas.

At a

ll le

vels

of

lang

uage

ac

quis

itio

n,

hom

e la

ngua

ge

and

Eng

lish

lang

uage

de

velo

pmen

t

• in

fluen

ce a

nd

rein

forc

e ea

ch

othe

r; an

d

• m

edia

te

unde

rsta

ndin

g,

cons

truc

tion

of

mea

ning

, and

de

mon

strat

ion

of

know

ledg

e.

A Th

eore

tical

Fra

mew

ork

for E

arly

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Dev

elop

men

t (E-

ELD

) Sta

ndar

ds fo

r Dua

l Lan

guag

e Le

arne

rs

22

Earl

y En

glis

h La

ngua

ge D

evel

opm

ent P

erfo

rman

ce D

efini

tion

s - R

ecep

tive

Lan

guag

e

Tow

ard

the

end

of e

ach

age

clus

ter a

nd g

iven

leve

l of E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent,

and

with

sens

ory

and

inte

ract

ive

supp

orts,

dua

l lan

guag

e le

arne

rs w

ill

proc

ess i

n En

glish

and

non

-ver

bally

dem

onstr

ate

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

:

…w

ithin

soci

ocul

tura

l con

text

s for

lang

uage

use

.

© M

arch

201

3, B

oard

of R

egen

ts of

the U

nive

rsity

of W

iscon

sin S

yste

m o

n be

half

of th

e WID

A C

onso

rtiu

m-D

RAFT

HOME LANGUAGE

Lang

uage

Cri

teri

aA

ges

2.5-

3.5

Year

s (3

0-42

mos

.)A

ges

3.5-

4.5

Year

s (4

3-54

mos

.)

Leve

l 5Br

idgi

ng

Ling

uist

ic

Com

plex

ity

Lang

uage

Usa

ge

• Se

ries o

f sim

ple s

ente

nces

relat

ed to

fam

iliar

stor

ies o

r ev

ents

• An

idea

with

1-2

det

ails;

1-ste

p di

rect

ion

relat

ed to

dail

y ro

utin

e

• Sh

ort a

nd co

mpo

und

sent

ence

s rela

ted

to d

aily

rout

ine,

fam

iliar

peo

ple,

song

s, an

d sto

ries

• G

ener

al an

d so

me s

pecifi

c voc

abul

ary

word

s asso

ciate

d wi

th fa

mili

ar en

viro

nmen

ts an

d sto

ries

• Se

ries o

f ext

ende

d se

nten

ces r

elate

d to

fam

iliar

stor

ies,

learn

ing

activ

ities

, or e

vent

s•

Relat

ed id

eas;

2-ste

p di

rect

ions

relat

ed to

dail

y ro

utin

e

• C

ompo

und

and

som

e com

plex

sent

ence

s rela

ted

to fa

mili

ar

storie

s and

lear

ning

activ

ities

• Sp

ecifi

c voc

abul

ary

word

s asso

ciate

d wi

th st

ories

, lea

rnin

g ac

tiviti

es, a

nd v

ario

us en

viro

nmen

ts

Leve

l 3D

evel

opin

g

Ling

uist

ic

Com

plex

ity

Lang

uage

Usa

ge

• Re

lated

phr

ases

and

simpl

e sen

tenc

es

• An

idea

with

1 d

etail

• Sh

ort s

ente

nces

relat

ed to

dail

y ro

utin

e, fa

mili

ar p

eopl

e, so

ngs,

and

storie

s•

Repe

titiv

e phr

asal

patte

rns r

elate

d to

dail

y ro

utin

e and

fa

mili

ar st

ories

• G

ener

al vo

cabu

lary

word

s rela

ted

to d

aily

rout

ine a

nd

fam

iliar

stor

ies

• •M

ultip

le re

lated

sim

ple s

ente

nces

; wh-

ques

tions

• An

idea

with

2 d

etail

s

• Sh

ort a

nd so

me c

ompo

und

sent

ence

s rela

ted

to fa

mili

ar

storie

s and

lear

ning

activ

ities

• Se

nten

ce p

atte

rns r

elate

d to

fam

iliar

stor

ies an

d lea

rnin

g ac

tiviti

es

• G

ener

al an

d so

me s

pecifi

c voc

abul

ary

relat

ed to

dail

y ro

utin

e, fa

mili

ar st

ories

, and

lear

ning

activ

ities

Leve

l 1En

teri

ng

Ling

uist

ic

Com

plex

ity

Lang

uage

Usa

ge

• W

ords

and

repe

titiv

e phr

ases

relat

ed to

dail

y ro

utin

e•

An id

ea w

ithin

sim

ple q

uesti

ons o

r sta

tem

ents

relat

ed to

se

lf, fa

mili

ar p

eopl

e, or

dail

y ro

utin

e

• Re

petit

ive p

hras

es as

socia

ted

with

dail

y ro

utin

e•

Yes/n

o qu

estio

ns re

lated

to se

lf, fa

mili

ar p

eopl

e, an

d/or

da

ily ro

utin

e•

Wor

ds as

socia

ted

with

fam

iliar

envi

ronm

ents

• W

ords

and

phra

ses r

elate

d to

dail

y ro

utin

e•

An id

ea w

ithin

sim

ple q

uesti

ons o

r sta

tem

ents

relat

ed to

fa

mili

ar en

viro

nmen

ts

• Re

petit

ive p

hras

es an

d sim

ple s

tate

men

ts as

socia

ted

with

da

ily ro

utin

e•

Yes/n

o qu

estio

ns re

lated

to se

lf, fa

mili

ar p

eopl

e, an

d/or

dail

y ro

utin

e•

Wor

ds an

d ex

pres

sions

asso

ciate

d wi

th fa

mili

ar en

viro

nmen

ts

At th

e ve

ry b

egin

ning

stag

es o

f Eng

lish

lang

uage

acq

uisit

ion,

dua

l lan

guag

e le

arne

rs ty

pica

lly u

nder

stand

mor

e w

ords

than

they

are

abl

e to

pro

duce

. Chi

ldre

n m

ay b

e no

n-ve

rbal

in E

nglis

h an

d re

ly p

rimar

ily o

n th

eir h

ome

lang

uage

and

/or g

estu

res t

o co

mm

unic

ate

thei

r nee

ds, w

ants,

and

idea

s.

At a

ll le

vels

of

lang

uage

ac

quis

itio

n,

hom

e la

ngua

ge

and

Eng

lish

lang

uage

de

velo

pmen

t

• in

fluen

ce a

nd

rein

forc

e ea

ch

othe

r; an

d

• m

edia

te

unde

rsta

ndin

g,

cons

truc

tion

of

mea

ning

, and

de

mon

strat

ion

of

know

ledg

e.

A Th

eore

tical

Fra

mew

ork

for E

arly

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Dev

elop

men

t (E-

ELD

) Sta

ndar

ds fo

r Dua

l Lan

guag

e Le

arne

rs

23

Earl

y En

glis

h La

ngua

ge D

evel

opm

ent P

erfo

rman

ce D

efini

tion

s - R

ecep

tive

Lan

guag

e

© M

arch

201

3, B

oard

of R

egen

ts of

the U

nive

rsity

of W

iscon

sin S

yste

m o

n be

half

of th

e WID

A C

onso

rtiu

m-D

RAFT

Tow

ard

the

end

of e

ach

age

clus

ter a

nd g

iven

leve

l of E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent,

and

with

sens

ory

and

inte

ract

ive

supp

orts,

dua

l lan

guag

e le

arne

rs w

ill

proc

ess i

n En

glish

and

non

-ver

bally

dem

onstr

ate

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

:

…w

ithin

soci

ocul

tura

l con

text

s for

lang

uage

use

.

HOME LANGUAGE

Lang

uage

Cri

teri

aA

ge 4

.5-5

.5 Y

ears

(55-

66 M

onth

s)

Leve

l 5Br

idgi

ng

Ling

uist

ic

Com

plex

ity

Lang

uage

Usa

ge

• Se

nten

ces/

ques

tions

of v

aryi

ng ri

chne

ss a

nd c

ompl

exity

rela

ted

to fa

mili

ar st

orie

s, le

arni

ng a

ctiv

ities

, or

even

ts•

Expa

nded

rela

ted

idea

s; 2-

3 ste

p di

rect

ions

rela

ted

to d

aily

rout

ine

and

som

e no

vel d

irect

ions

• C

ompl

ex se

nten

ces a

nd la

ngua

ge p

atte

rns r

elat

ed to

fam

iliar

stor

ies a

nd in

struc

tiona

l act

iviti

es•

Spec

ific

and

som

e te

chni

cal v

ocab

ular

y w

ords

ass

ocia

ted

with

var

ious

env

ironm

ents

and

lear

ning

act

iviti

es

Leve

l 3D

evel

opin

g

Ling

uist

ic

Com

plex

ity

Lang

uage

Usa

ge

• M

ultip

le re

late

d ex

tend

ed se

nten

ces

• Re

late

d id

eas

• C

ompo

und

and

som

e co

mpl

ex se

nten

ces r

elat

ed to

fam

iliar

stor

ies a

nd le

arni

ng a

ctiv

ities

• Se

nten

ce p

atte

rns r

elat

ed to

spec

ific

lear

ning

act

iviti

es a

nd st

orie

s•

Gen

eral

and

som

e sp

ecifi

c vo

cabu

lary

wor

ds a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith fa

mili

ar e

nviro

nmen

ts an

d le

arni

ng a

ctiv

ities

Leve

l 1En

teri

ng

Ling

uist

ic

Com

plex

ity

Lang

uage

Usa

ge

• W

ords

and

long

er p

hras

es re

late

d to

dai

ly ro

utin

e an

d le

arni

ng a

ctiv

ities

• An

idea

with

in si

mpl

e qu

estio

ns o

r sta

tem

ents

rela

ted

to fa

mili

ar e

nviro

nmen

ts

• Re

petit

ive

phra

ses a

nd si

mpl

e sta

tem

ents

asso

ciat

ed w

ith d

aily

rout

ine

• Ye

s/no

que

stion

s rel

ated

to se

lf, fa

mili

ar p

eopl

e, a

nd/o

r dai

ly ro

utin

e•

Wor

ds a

nd e

xpre

ssio

ns a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith fa

mili

ar e

nviro

nmen

ts an

d le

arni

ng a

ctiv

ities

At th

e ve

ry b

egin

ning

stag

es o

f Eng

lish

lang

uage

acq

uisit

ion,

dua

l lan

guag

e le

arne

rs ty

pica

lly u

nder

stand

mor

e w

ords

than

they

are

abl

e to

pro

duce

. C

hild

ren

may

be

non-

verb

al in

Eng

lish

and

rely

prim

arily

on

thei

r hom

e la

ngua

ge a

nd/o

r ges

ture

s to

com

mun

icat

e th

eir n

eeds

, wan

ts, a

nd id

eas.

At a

ll le

vels

of

lang

uage

ac

quis

itio

n,

hom

e la

ngua

ge

and

Eng

lish

lang

uage

de

velo

pmen

t

• in

fluen

ce a

nd

rein

forc

e ea

ch

othe

r; an

d

• m

edia

te

unde

rsta

ndin

g,

cons

truc

tion

of

mea

ning

, and

de

mon

strat

ion

of

know

ledg

e.

A Th

eore

tical

Fra

mew

ork

for E

arly

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Dev

elop

men

t (E-

ELD

) Sta

ndar

ds fo

r Dua

l Lan

guag

e Le

arne

rs

24

App

endi

x F.

Exa

mpl

e St

rand

s of

MPI

s

EXA

MPL

E CO

NTE

XT

FOR

LAN

GU

AG

E U

SE:

Chi

ldre

n cr

eate

col

lage

s of f

amily

mem

bers

usin

g ph

otos

, mag

azin

e pi

ctur

es, a

nd/o

r the

ir ow

n dr

awin

gs.

COG

NIT

IVE

FUN

CTI

ON

: C

hild

ren

at a

ll le

vels

of E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent R

ECO

GN

IZE

fam

ily m

embe

rs b

y th

eir r

oles

.

DOMAIN: Receptive

Leve

l 1En

teri

ngLe

vel 3

Dev

elop

ing

Leve

l 5Br

idgi

ng

Resp

ond

to y

es/n

o qu

estio

ns a

bout

fam

ily m

embe

rs

in p

hoto

s/pi

ctur

es w

ith a

dult

mod

el (e

.g.,

“Is t

his

mom

my?

”)

Find

fam

ily m

embe

r pho

tos/

pict

ures

whe

n or

ally

na

med

with

adu

lt m

odel

(e.g

., “S

how

me

mom

my/

mam

a”)

Find

fam

ily m

embe

r pho

tos/

pict

ures

bas

ed o

n or

al

state

men

ts w

ith v

erba

l pro

mpt

(e.g

., “F

ind

the

baby

”, “

Whe

re is

dad

dy?”

)

TOPI

C-RE

LATE

D L

AN

GU

AG

E: C

hild

ren

at a

ll le

vels

of la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent i

nter

act w

ith d

evel

opm

enta

lly-a

ppro

pria

te w

ords

and

exp

ress

ions

, suc

h as

: mom

my/

mam

a,

dadd

y/pa

pa, b

aby,

“Sho

w m

e __

____

_”, “

Whe

re is

___

__?”

, “Fi

nd a

/the_

____

__”*

*Fam

ily m

embe

r wor

ds to

emph

asiz

e will

var

y acc

ordi

ng to

indi

vidu

al fa

mili

es, cu

lture

s, an

d la

ngua

ges r

epre

sente

d in

your

pro

gram

.

E-EL

D S

TAN

DA

RD 5

: The

Lan

guag

e of

Soc

ial S

tudi

es

EXA

MPL

E TO

PIC:

Fam

ilies

AG

ES: 2

.5–3

.5

A Th

eore

tical

Fra

mew

ork

for E

arly

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Dev

elop

men

t (E-

ELD

) Sta

ndar

ds fo

r Dua

l Lan

guag

e Le

arne

rs

25

EXA

MPL

E CO

NTE

XT

FOR

LAN

GU

AG

E U

SE:

Chi

ldre

n cr

eate

col

lage

s of t

heir

fam

ily m

embe

rs u

sing

phot

os, m

agaz

ine

pict

ures

, and

/or t

heir

own

draw

ings

.

COG

NIT

IVE

FUN

CTI

ON

: C

hild

ren

at a

ll le

vels

of E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent R

ECO

GN

IZE

fam

ily m

embe

rs b

y th

eir r

oles

.

DOMAIN: Receptive

Leve

l 1En

teri

ngLe

vel 3

Dev

elop

ing

Leve

l 5Br

idgi

ng

Poin

t to

fam

ily m

embe

r pho

tos/

pict

ures

whe

n or

ally

nam

ed w

ith a

dult

mod

el (e

.g.,

“Poi

nt to

da

ddy/

papa

.”)

Find

fam

ily m

embe

r pho

tos/

pict

ures

acc

ordi

ng to

or

al st

atem

ents/

ques

tions

with

a p

artn

er a

nd a

dult

mod

el (e

.g.,

“Fin

d yo

ur g

rand

ma”

, “D

o yo

u ha

ve a

sis

ter?

”)

Find

fam

ily m

embe

r pho

tos/

pict

ures

bas

ed o

n or

al

desc

riptio

ns w

ith a

par

tner

and

adu

lt pr

ompt

(e.g

., “F

ind

your

big

bro

ther

”, “

Find

my

baby

girl

”)

TOPI

C-RE

LATE

D L

AN

GU

AG

E: C

hild

ren

at a

ll le

vels

of la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent i

nter

act w

ith d

evel

opm

enta

lly-a

ppro

pria

te w

ords

and

exp

ress

ions

such

as:

fam

ily, g

rand

ma/

gran

dpa,

bro

ther

, sist

er, g

irl, b

oy, b

ig/li

ttle,

“Po

int t

o___

__”,

“Fi

nd m

y/yo

ur__

____

”, “

Do

you

have

a__

____

__?”

*

*Fam

ily m

embe

r wor

ds to

emph

asiz

e will

var

y acc

ordi

ng to

indi

vidu

al fa

mili

es an

d cu

lture

s tha

t are

repr

esent

ed in

pro

gram

.

AG

ES: 3

.5–4

.5

E-EL

D S

TAN

DA

RD 5

: The

Lan

guag

e of

Soc

ial S

tudi

es

EXA

MPL

E TO

PIC:

Fam

ilies

A Th

eore

tical

Fra

mew

ork

for E

arly

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Dev

elop

men

t (E-

ELD

) Sta

ndar

ds fo

r Dua

l Lan

guag

e Le

arne

rs

26

EXA

MPL

E CO

NTE

XT

FOR

LAN

GU

AG

E U

SE:

Chi

ldre

n cr

eate

col

lage

s of t

heir

fam

ily m

embe

rs u

sing

phot

os, m

agaz

ine

pict

ures

, and

/or t

heir

own

draw

ings

.

COG

NIT

IVE

FUN

CTI

ON

: C

hild

ren

at a

ll le

vels

of E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent R

ECO

GN

IZE

fam

ily m

embe

rs b

y th

eir r

oles

.

DOMAIN: Receptive

Leve

l 1En

teri

ngLe

vel 3

Dev

elop

ing

Leve

l 5Br

idgi

ng

Resp

ond

to si

mpl

e qu

estio

ns/s

tate

men

ts ab

out

fam

ily m

embe

rs b

y fin

ding

pho

tos/

pict

ures

/dr

awin

gs w

ith a

dult

mod

el (e

.g.,

“Whe

re is

m

omm

y/da

ddy?

”, “

Show

me

gran

dma”

, “Sh

ow m

e ch

ildre

n”)

Find

fam

ily m

embe

rs’ p

hoto

s/pi

ctur

es o

r dra

win

gs

base

d on

ora

l des

crip

tions

with

a p

artn

er a

nd a

dult

mod

el (e

.g.,

“His

aunt

is a

gro

wnu

p. S

he ta

kes c

are

of c

hild

ren.

”, “

Find

her

unc

le. H

e co

oks a

t the

re

staur

ant.”

)

Sort

fam

ily m

embe

r pho

tos/

pict

ures

by

role

s ac

cord

ing

to o

ral d

escr

iptio

ns w

ith a

par

tner

giv

en

adul

t mod

el (e

.g.,

“Put

all

the

grow

nups

toge

ther

w

ho b

uy g

roce

ries”

, “Pu

t all

the

grow

nups

toge

ther

w

ho ta

ke c

are

of c

hild

ren”

, “Pu

t all

the

child

ren

toge

ther

who

go

to sc

hool

”)

TOPI

C-RE

LATE

D L

AN

GU

AG

E: C

hild

ren

at a

ll le

vels

of la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent i

nter

act w

ith d

evel

opm

enta

lly-a

ppro

pria

te w

ords

and

exp

ress

ions

, suc

h as

: aun

t, un

cle,

gr

own-

ups,

child

ren,

his/

her,

groc

erie

s, re

staur

ant,

scho

ol, “

Put a

ll th

e __

____

__to

geth

er th

at _

____

___”

*

*Fam

ily m

embe

r wor

ds to

emph

asiz

e will

var

y acc

ordi

ng to

indi

vidu

al fa

mili

es an

d cu

lture

s tha

t are

repr

esent

ed in

pro

gram

.

E-EL

D S

TAN

DA

RD 5

: The

Lan

guag

e of

Soc

ial S

tudi

es

EXA

MPL

E TO

PIC:

Fam

ilies

AG

ES: 4

.5–5

.5

A Th

eore

tical

Fra

mew

ork

for E

arly

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Dev

elop

men

t (E-

ELD

) Sta

ndar

ds fo

r Dua

l Lan

guag

e Le

arne

rs

27

EXA

MPL

E CO

NTE

XT

FOR

LAN

GU

AG

E U

SE:

Chi

ldre

n pl

ay w

ith a

var

iety

of t

oy v

ehic

les a

nd a

ssoc

iate

d pr

ops i

ndoo

rs o

r out

door

s.

COG

NIT

IVE

FUN

CTI

ON

: C

hild

ren

at a

ll le

vels

of E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent U

ND

ERST

AND

act

ions

ass

ocia

ted

with

veh

icle

s.

DOMAIN: Expressive

Leve

l 1En

teri

ngLe

vel 3

Dev

elop

ing

Leve

l 5Br

idgi

ng

Rep

eat n

ames

of v

ehic

les a

nd a

ssoc

iate

d ac

tions

w

ith a

dult

mod

el (e

.g.,

car,

truc

k, b

us, g

o, st

op)

Nam

e ve

hicl

es a

nd a

ssoc

iate

d ac

tions

usin

g sh

ort

phra

ses w

ith a

dult

mod

el (e

.g.,

“My

car”

, “Tr

uck

stop”

)

Com

men

t on

vehi

cles

and

ass

ocia

ted

actio

ns w

ith

adul

t mod

el (e

.g.,

“That

’s m

y ca

r!”, “

Your

truc

k sto

ps”)

TOPI

C-RE

LATE

D L

AN

GU

AG

E: C

hild

ren

at a

ll le

vels

of la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent i

nter

act w

ith d

evel

opm

enta

lly-a

ppro

pria

te w

ords

and

exp

ress

ions

, suc

h as

: car

, tru

ck, b

us,

go, s

top,

“M

y/yo

ur _

____

”, “

My/

your

____

_ go

es/s

tops

”

AG

ES: 2

.5–3

.5

E-EL

D S

TAN

DA

RD 5

: The

Lan

guag

e of

Soc

ial S

tudi

es

EXA

MPL

E TO

PIC:

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

A Th

eore

tical

Fra

mew

ork

for E

arly

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Dev

elop

men

t (E-

ELD

) Sta

ndar

ds fo

r Dua

l Lan

guag

e Le

arne

rs

28

EXA

MPL

E CO

NTE

XT

FOR

LAN

GU

AG

E U

SE:

Chi

ldre

n pl

ay w

ith a

var

iety

of t

oy v

ehic

les a

nd a

ssoc

iate

d pr

ops i

ndoo

rs o

r out

door

s.

COG

NIT

IVE

FUN

CTI

ON

: C

hild

ren

at a

ll le

vels

of E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent U

ND

ERST

AND

act

ions

/rol

es a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith v

ehic

les.

DOMAIN: Expressive

Leve

l 1En

teri

ngLe

vel 3

Dev

elop

ing

Leve

l 5Br

idgi

ng

Rep

eat n

ames

of v

ehic

les a

nd a

ssoc

iate

d ac

tions

w

ith a

dult

mod

el (e

.g.,

car,

bus,

fire

truc

k, fa

st)C

omm

ent o

n ac

tions

/rol

es a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith v

ehic

les

with

ver

bal p

rom

pt (e

.g.,

“That

my

car”

, “N

o, I

firefi

ghte

r. Yo

u po

lice.”

)

Des

crib

e ac

tions

/rol

es a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith v

ehic

les w

ith

a pa

rtne

r and

ver

bal p

rom

pt (e

.g.,

“My

fire

truc

k go

es fa

st”, “

I’m d

rivin

g th

e po

lice

car”

, “Yo

u’re

the

bus d

river

”)

TOPI

C-RE

LATE

D L

AN

GU

AG

E: C

hild

ren

at a

ll le

vels

of la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent i

nter

act w

ith d

evel

opm

enta

lly-a

ppro

pria

te w

ords

and

exp

ress

ions

, suc

h as

: fire

truc

k, p

olic

e,

fire

fight

er, f

ast,

slow,

“bu

s/tr

uck

driv

er”,

“I’m

/You

’re d

rivin

g __

____

____

”

E-EL

D S

TAN

DA

RD 5

: The

Lan

guag

e of

Soc

ial S

tudi

es

EXA

MPL

E TO

PIC:

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

AG

ES: 3

.5–4

.5

A Th

eore

tical

Fra

mew

ork

for E

arly

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Dev

elop

men

t (E-

ELD

) Sta

ndar

ds fo

r Dua

l Lan

guag

e Le

arne

rs

29

EXA

MPL

E CO

NTE

XT

FOR

LAN

GU

AG

E U

SE:

Chi

ldre

n pl

ay w

ith a

var

iety

of t

oy v

ehic

les a

nd a

ssoc

iate

d pr

ops i

ndoo

rs o

r out

door

s.

COG

NIT

IVE

FUN

CTI

ON

: C

hild

ren

at a

ll le

vels

of E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent U

ND

ERST

AND

act

ions

/rol

es a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith v

ehic

les.

DOMAIN: Expressive

Leve

l 1En

teri

ngLe

vel 3

Dev

elop

ing

Leve

l 5Br

idgi

ng

Rep

eat n

ames

of v

ehic

les a

nd a

ssoc

iate

d ac

tions

w

ith a

dult

mod

el (e

.g.,

fly, f

ast,

airp

lane

, pol

ice

car,

bus d

river

)

Com

men

t on

actio

ns/r

oles

ass

ocia

ted

with

veh

icle

s w

ith v

erba

l pro

mpt

(e.g

., “P

olic

e ca

r go

fast”

, “T

ruck

go

slow

”, “A

irpla

ne fl

y up

”)

Des

crib

e ac

tions

/rol

es a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith v

ehic

les w

ith

a pa

rtne

r and

ver

bal p

rom

pt (e

.g.,

“That

fire

truc

k go

es re

ally

fast!

”, “

I wan

t to

be th

e ai

rpla

ne p

ilot”

, “Th

e ai

rpla

ne h

as w

ings

. The

bus h

as w

heel

s.”)

TOPI

C-RE

LATE

D L

AN

GU

AG

E: C

hild

ren

at a

ll le

vels

of la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent i

nter

act w

ith d

evel

opm

enta

lly-a

ppro

pria

te w

ords

and

exp

ress

ions

, suc

h as

: airp

lane

, am

bula

nce,

hel

icop

ter,

pilo

t, fly

, win

gs, w

heel

s, “I

wan

t to

be _

____

_”

AG

ES: 4

.5–5

.5

E-EL

D S

TAN

DA

RD 5

: The

Lan

guag

e of

Soc

ial S

tudi

es

EXA

MPL

E TO

PIC:

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion


30

APPENDIX G: Acknowledgements

WIDA would like to extend its sincere gratitude to Ruth Reinl for the countless hours she spent researching, writing and revising this Theoretical Framework and for her vision, guidance and assistance in the development of the Early English Language Development (E-ELD) Standards Framework. Ruth’s commitment to dual language learners and their caregivers, teachers, and families as well as her willingness to dig deep and explore an area of scholarship and practice that is often in the margins is evident throughout WIDA’s resources for early dual language development. Ruth Reinl has over 25 years of experience in Early Childhood as a special education teacher, English as a Second Language (ESL) and Bilingual Education program support teacher, and early dual language learning consultant. Ruth taught English- and Spanish-speaking 3-5 year-olds with and without disabilities for 14 years in public school and community-based settings including Head Start, preschool, child care, and children’s homes. She partnered extensively with Spanish-speaking families of young children with disabilities through developing and facilitating bilingual play groups, bilingual early literacy parent-child nights, home visits, and classroom consultations. She has conducted numerous developmental screenings, assessments to determine eligibility to special education, and formative assessments of Spanish-speaking dual language learners, 3-5 years. As an ESL & Bilingual Education program support teacher, grades K-5, Ruth provided technical assistance and professional development to principals, instructional teams, and staff on effective classroom instructional design for meeting the linguistic needs of English Language Learners (ELLs) and interpreting ACCESS for ELLs test scores to guide and enhance instruction.

Ruth has created numerous resources for state and national dissemination regarding language development in young dual language learners and culturally and linguistically responsive practices. She has extensive experience providing professional development and technical assistance at the state and national levels to early childhood higher education faculty, practitioners, and administrators on supporting, assessing, and instructing dual language learners. Ruth has also collaborated with the national Office of Head Start on developing resources pertaining to culturally and linguistically responsive assessment and instructional practices for children and families.

Currently, Ruth is the lead consultant/content developer of the WIDA Early-English Language Development Standards and advisor to the Early-Spanish Language Development Standards. Ruth has an M.S.E. in Early Childhood: Exceptional Educational Needs, a B.A. in Spanish and Ibero-American Studies, and is certified in ESL and Bilingual Education (Birth-8 years). She studied, taught English, and lived in Spain and Peru for three years. Ruth is passionate about educational equity and social justice issues and is delighted to be part of WIDA’s Early- English Language Development Standards team.

©2013 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, on behalf of the WIDA Consortium

www.wida.us

Documents

A Theoretical Framework for Early English Language ......learn language through the context of relationships with their primary caregivers during daily routines. Through Through repeated